Comments on: Ted on the SEC and Stoneridge https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/05/ted-on-the-sec-and-stoneridge/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 31 May 2007 16:50:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ted https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/05/ted-on-the-sec-and-stoneridge/comment-page-1/#comment-7485 Thu, 31 May 2007 16:50:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4955#comment-7485 The advertising allowance was explicitly tied to the number of units purchased. So, in effect, Charter was paying $X and ($20 worth of advertising barter) for a unit. It recorded this as ($X + $20) capital expense and $20 revenue, which apparently isn’t kosher.

]]> By: delurking https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/05/ted-on-the-sec-and-stoneridge/comment-page-1/#comment-7484 Thu, 31 May 2007 16:20:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4955#comment-7484 I don’t follow. If I am a TV station and I buy equipment from you at the same price that everyone else buys it from you, and you buy advertising from me at the same price that everyone else buys advertising from me, is it wrong to call the entire equipment cost a capital purchase, and the advertising revenue revenue?

Is some information missing

]]> By: Melvin https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/05/ted-on-the-sec-and-stoneridge/comment-page-1/#comment-7483 Thu, 31 May 2007 09:46:57 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4955#comment-7483 This lawsuit reminds me, on its face, of the attempt to sue the gun-makers by cities over actions by gun dealers; or, even the suits against aircraft manufacturers in plane crashes (especially involving planes over 15-20 years old).

]]>